12
   

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 11:40 am
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The entire cozy little "war on terror" package with which the Shrub and Company hoped to cover a multitude of evils certain was a scare tactic.


BS..pure and simple...The war on terror was in direct response to these actions from muslim extremists and the CIA's mistaken belief that Hussein was hiding wmd and willing to provide the same to these extremists. The war had nothing to do with diverting attention from some "multitude of evils" you've dreamed up.


Boy, the official line hooked you like a fish, didn't it?

The Bush Bunch wanted to go to war in Iraq before Bush was even elected. Their writings are littered with calls to do so. It's quite obvious that 9/11 was an excuse for them to do so.

You state that it was in response to 'these muslim extremists..' who weren't in Iraq and had nothing to do with Iraq. It wasn't in 'response' to anything, other than the Right-wing belief that offensive wars are the American Way!

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 11:46 am
@slkshock7,
The pure and simple bullshit is yours. Only two effective things were done in response to the attacks made on September 11th, 2001. Those were the invasion of Afghanistan and the decision of European security agencies to follow the money trails. The European security agencies rounded up scores of people who were actually affiliated with Al Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan has at the very least crippled Al Qaeda, if it has not actually destroyed it. The Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan, with the result that it has destabilized Pakistan--but Pakistan was already headed down that road. The clash between the tribal, Muslim fundamentalists of Pakistan and the westernized, well-educated portion of the population has simply been hastened, the stage for it was already set. The Taliban were originally hailed as saviors by the Afghans, but they were soon disabused of their illusions. The continuing fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan has simply eroded popular support for the Taliban, for however much they hate the foreign invaders.

The shoe bomber on the plane from Paris was a nut case with no connection to Al Qaeda. The London subway bombers of July 7th were freelancers who were British nationals, with no previous connection to Al Qaeda. The train bombers in Spain had no previous connection to Al Qaeda. The war on the Taliban and on Al Qaeda has been, at least partially, effective. The so-called "war on terror" has been a bullshit publicity stunt which the Bush administration hoped to use to justify a host of violations of the principles of the United States which they claimed to be defending. The use of "extraordinary renditions" doesn't make us safer. Sending people off to be tortured in other countries does not yield useful intelligence--all the experts on interrogation who have spoken out publicly have stated unequivocally that torture is not an effective interrogation technique. People who are tortured are being subjected to terror themselves, and they will say whatever it is they think you want to hear in the hope that this will lead you to stop torturing them. Attempting to conduct warrant-less searches of telephone company data bases doesn't make us safer, but it certainly violates our civil rights, which the Bush administration claimed to be defending.

I see you are conflating the invasion of Iraq with the alleged "war on terror." I hadn't mentioned the invasion of Iraq--that was a PNAC project devoutly desired by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and a host of other neo-cons in the Bush administration. However, the fact that you immediately associate it with a discussion of the "war on terror" is ample evidence of the extent to which the propaganda has been successful.
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 06:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo,
I guess you can believe whatever off the wall scenario you want to believe, but "the official line" will go down in the history books as the truth.

You have nothing but innuendo and a few statements taken out of context to prove your point. Thank you very much, but I'll stick with the facts.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 06:45 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:
Thank you very much, but I'll stick with the facts.
what a hoot, I hope you post more often.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 06:58 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
I guess you can believe whatever off the wall scenario you want to believe, but "the official line" will go down in the history books as the truth.

You have nothing but innuendo and a few statements taken out of context to prove your point. Thank you very much, but I'll stick with the facts.


You really believe that? My guess is history books will forward a quite different plot. It might not be that way if the invasion of Iraq had successfully found WMD, or been over quickly; but it certainly will not be viewed as some sort of success story, brought on out of necessity. Far from it.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 07:07 pm
I was very grumpy when I got home last night. I apologize for my rather rude rant above.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 07:11 pm
@Setanta,
Set,
Your rant is more paranoid than usual. The Iraq war was and is part of the war on terror just as is Afghanistan. Now I'll give you that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks and I've not insinuated that they did. However, there is no dispute that Bin Laden overtured Iraq on several occassions and that Hussein made similar overtures of assistance and asylum to Bin Laden. The fact that they never established a collaborative relationship is beside the point.
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 07:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
cyclo wrote:
My guess is history books will forward a quite different plot.


Well when you find a history book that reports this plot please let me know. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Aug, 2009 08:30 pm
@slkshock7,
Do you know what the word paranoid means? Jesus, now you're just throwing slurs around, and i suspect that's because you can't maintain a rational position in this argument. I have no notion that anyone is out to get me, and certainly not because of the invasion of Iraq. You should go look up the word "paranoid," and see if you can't get a better understanding of how and when to use it.

Not only did bin Laden not "overture" Iraq (to my knowledge, overture is not a verb)--at the time of the first Gulf War, he offered to send his boys in to take out Saddam Hussein. Iraq under the Ba'athists was a secular state. Osama bin Laden embraced the principles of the Wahabbism, an extremist, right-wing, fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam. For Al Qaeda, before 1991, Iraq was the great Satan, not the United States.

This fantasy which you are attempting to peddle about bin Laden is just more evidence of the extent to which you have swallowed the propaganda--hook, line and sinker.
slkshock7
 
  0  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:05 am
@Setanta,
Set,
Did you even read the 9-11 Commission report? Start at around page 61 and you'll see that Bin Laden did indeed overture (yes it is a verb) Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:37 am
Yes, i've read the commissions report, and it nowhere states or even implies that there were any link between bin Laden and Iraq. You're just making **** up, now.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:44 am
I've just checked again to be sure (something you should have done). It comes to the conclusion that there was increased contact between Iran and Al Qaeda.

You do a piss poor job with this stuff.

Quote:
"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:47 am
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Set,
Your rant is more paranoid than usual. The Iraq war was and is part of the war on terror just as is Afghanistan. Now I'll give you that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks and I've not insinuated that they did. However, there is no dispute that Bin Laden overtured Iraq on several occassions and that Hussein made similar overtures of assistance and asylum to Bin Laden. The fact that they never established a collaborative relationship is beside the point.


The 'war on terror' was a phrase invented to provide the thinnest blanket of cover, over the ambitions of Cheney and his cronies to aggressively invade several countries.

I think there IS dispute that Bin Laden sought alliance with Iraq, but even if he did, it doesn't matter at all; that didn't provide justification for us to attack. The fact that they weren't collaborators isn't beside the point at all.

Amazing to me, how you Conservatives have truly convinced yourselves that we did nothing wrong. That the last several years were not full of mistakes and ****-ups on the part of your leadership. You are so far out of the mainstream on these opinions, it's not even funny.

Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:53 am
@Setanta,
Suggest you check again.....We're talking about Iraq, not Iran. I know what it says about Iran and I know it says that Iraq and Bin Laden did not cooperate in the attacks against the US. You implied that the Iraq war was not a front on the war on terror but rather some preconceived vengence ploy of Bush, Cheney and PNAC. The 9-11 Report puts the lie to your assertion

9-11 Commission Report wrote:

pg 61 - "Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq..." and "...Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum...Bin Laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons..."

Pg 66 - "There is also evidence that around this time Bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation...In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States"


The last sentence supports your contention but I've never disputed that. The rest of the quote supports my argument that Iraq and Al Queda were talking and offering each other assistance, even if neither ever took the other up on the offer. As allies in their "hatred of the United States", they were (and are) mutually our opponents in the war on terror.
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 10:05 am
@Cycloptichorn,
cyclo wrote:
Amazing to me, how you Conservatives have truly convinced yourselves that we did nothing wrong. That the last several years were not full of mistakes and ****-ups on the part of your leadership. You are so far out of the mainstream on these opinions, it's not even funny.


I've never said that the Bush administration did nothing wrong. They screwed up royally, especially in failing to be as adequately prepared to "win the peace" as they were to "win the war". History is replete with examples of decisions correctly made at the time using the available facts at hand which proved wrong in hind-sight. The decision-making process that Bush went thru (using the facts he had then) is still valid and it's a vain and futile exercise to rethink that decision thru the lens of facts know today.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 10:52 am
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

cyclo wrote:
Amazing to me, how you Conservatives have truly convinced yourselves that we did nothing wrong. That the last several years were not full of mistakes and ****-ups on the part of your leadership. You are so far out of the mainstream on these opinions, it's not even funny.


I've never said that the Bush administration did nothing wrong. They screwed up royally, especially in failing to be as adequately prepared to "win the peace" as they were to "win the war". History is replete with examples of decisions correctly made at the time using the available facts at hand which proved wrong in hind-sight. The decision-making process that Bush went thru (using the facts he had then) is still valid and it's a vain and futile exercise to rethink that decision thru the lens of facts know today.



This opinion still has as it's foundation, the idea that invading Iraq was a valid choice based upon the evidence available at the time; it wasn't. There are plenty of documents which showed that Bush, the CIA, and Britain knew the intel was false. There are an equal number of docs which show that the PNAC crew (Cheney and Rumsfeld's gang) were planning for and advocating for an invasion of Iraq before 9/11 even happened.

Remember Richard Clarke's account of the day after 9/11?

Quote:
As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

“Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq,” Clarke said to Stahl. “And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, ‘Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.


The 9/11 report and other evidence alleging connections between Iraq and AQ are based entirely upon verbal accounts of conversations exactly such as this. If you are willing to accept the words of a terrorist or informant as proof, you ought to be willing to extend that same courtesy to Richard Clarke.

This directly cuts against the argument, that Bush's crew took a sober look at the available evidence and came to the conclusion that, sadly, they had no choice but to attack Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the decision to attack Iraq was a political one, one which fulfilled long-term goals of the Neocons. And the disaster which ensued was a critical mistake for our country. I believe this is exactly what the 'history books' will show.

Cycloptichorn
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:47 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


This directly cuts against the argument, that Bush's crew took a sober look at the available evidence and came to the conclusion that, sadly, they had no choice but to attack Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the decision to attack Iraq was a political one, one which fulfilled long-term goals of the Neocons. And the disaster which ensued was a critical mistake for our country. I believe this is exactly what the 'history books' will show.

Cycloptichorn


No. The U.S. history books, that school children read, always make an ethical case for any actions the U.S. was involved in. That is the purpose of history books - to allow the current generation to believe in a good and just nation that one is a citizen of. History books, of a respective nation, are not going to make a nation look foolish. That is not the purpose of history books.

The history books that you talk about might be in a library, but you know how many people read library history books.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:52 am
@Foofie,
Quote:


No. The U.S. history books, that school children read, always make an ethical case for any actions the U.S. was involved in.


Uh, who gives a **** what 'children' read? Serious history books are for adults, not children.

Quote:

The history books that you talk about might be in a library, but you know how many people read library history books.


I do, and so do many, many others. Don't extrapolate based on your own limited experience with them.

Cycloptichorn
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 11:18 am
@slkshock7,
have you ever read any of the material on the website for The Project ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 11:28 am
@slkshock7,
No, you implied that Iraq was a front in the war on terror, as i have already pointed out, i did not mention Iraq--i have pointed out that it is not reasonable to claim that the invasion of Iraq is a legitimate part of the phony war on terror. You were the one who brought that up when i made my statement to the effect that the war on terror is a scare tactic designed to justify enormities and illegalities.

What you have quoted from the September 11th Commission report not only does not "put the lied" to anything which i asserted, i supports what i have pointed out, which is that there is no evidence of any cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda in attacks on the United States.

What sort of warped world view to you have that you would say that Iraq is (present tense) a "mutual" opponent of the United States with al Qaeda justifying this phony war on terror? Do you allege that Iraq remains a threat to the United States? That's one of the most idiotic claims i've read in some time, and given the crap people spew at this site, that's saying a lot.

I did not at any time state or imply that the PNAC's agenda is a "vengeance ploy." You're not very good at putting words in your own mouth, don't try putting them in mine. What i have said, and what one can see by perusing the documents at the PNAC web site, is that PNAC has advocated an invasion of Iraq since long before the September 11th attacks, which just makes more suspect and ridiculous a claim that invading Iraq was a legitimate action in any war on terror.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 02/27/2024 at 01:20:02